1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's rehabilitation debtor B is a rehabilitation claim against the debtor B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that cultivates and supplies spawn spawn with D’s trade name, and B is an agricultural partnership that conducts business, such as cultivating spawn.

B. From October 3, 2014 to October 2017, the Plaintiff regularly supplied 7,000 spawn spawn spawn each time to B farming association, and B farming association traded the price regularly.

C. B applied for the rehabilitation procedure on January 24, 2018 (Seoul District Court 2018 Gohap104). On February 28, 2018, the said court commenced the rehabilitation procedure against B farming association and appointed C as the manager.

On October 22, 2018, the above court approved the rehabilitation plan of B agricultural partnership.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff supplied to B agricultural partnership and the details of the equal price that the plaintiff supplied to B were not paid out are as follows.

The plaintiff asserts that the amount of 8,960,00 won should be deducted from the amount of 119,680,000 won in total due to bad pollution such as equal pollution, etc., and that the amount of 110,720,000 won should be determined as 108,220,000 won in the rehabilitation claim against the debtor B farming association of the debtor.

The plaintiff revised the balance of the claim by revising the error in calculation during the litigation, but did not change the purport of the claim.

Serial 14,640,000 13,160,160,000 21,480,480,000 239,960,960 215,800,800,160 24,160,000 246,40,000 225,400,000 2225,400,000 21,000 21,000,000,004 114,240,6240,000 620,000,004,004,04,004,004,004,080, 240,5060,5060,1960,608,000

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as evidence of determination, the Plaintiff’s deduction of KRW 626,280,000 = total amount of supply, as indicated in the separate sheet of credit balance from October 3, 2014 to May 8, 2017, as well as KRW 635,240,000, as indicated in the separate sheet of credit.